Talk:Larrabee County, Iowa/Archive 1

Distinct from Crocker and Bancoft?
This is an interesting little article, but I feel a GAN atm is premature due to how short the article is. I'm a bit confused on the separation of this from the Crocker County, Iowa and Bancroft County, Iowa article; they all occupy the same area, are essentially same iterations of the same proposed county split. Wouldn't an article that covers all three of these proposals as one be the best for understanding why Kossuth was never split? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Generalissima Thanks for your comments, however they are not the same. Larrabee was proposed and the other two were former. 48JCL (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of size, they are different however roughly the same. I would say it’s more like the other two articles have issues than this article does. Also, the GA nom passed. 48JCL (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is pretty nice but is short and the language just doesn't "flow" that well with me. GoldRomean (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoldRomean Please tell me what issues need to be addressed. 48JCL TALK  15:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not proposing GAR, but there’s a few minor things I fixed. In addition, 2 minor suggestions:
 * The county lasted from 1870 to 1871, but was deemed "unconstitutional". Is it necessary to link “unconstitutional” to that specific section in the article? I’m less sure about this, but should the period be inside the quotation marks?
 * For the sentence above, it’s a little out of order, because you mention that the County was deemed “unconstitutional”, and then talk about the court case that talks about deeming it unconstitutional again. And the county lasting from 1870 to 71 is already mentioned, but you could say something like “the county only lasted one year”.
 * I’ve gone ahead and fixed some other things myself. Either way, congrats on the GA :D. GoldRomean (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And not sure what’s happening here: If Larrabee County was to be created, it would consist of the north one third of Township 97, all of Townships 98, 99 and 100 north, of ranges 27, 28, 29 and 30 west of the fifth principal meridian in the state of Iowa. GoldRomean (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoldRomean Linked the word township to Survey township (United States). 48JCL  TALK  15:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unconstitutional has been removed from quotes. And the word Unconstitutional links there. I didn’t link Constitutionality. Unconstitutional just links there. 48JCL TALK  15:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed everything. 48JCL TALK  15:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Again, congrats on the GA. Hope to see you around :D. GoldRomean (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoldRomean Would it be possible if you could check if it meets the A-class criteria? 48JCL TALK  17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll take a look later, but I don’t have much experience in article assessment. Have you nominated this already? GoldRomean (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoldRomean There’s no formal A-class review for WP:USA. 48JCL TALK  21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in a lot of cases people go directly to FA. I've left a message on your talk page :D. GoldRomean (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. I just wrote a stupidly long reply… I don’t’ want to clog up this page though. Would you be fine with/is it alright with Wikipedia policy to put it on your talk page, or a separate sandbox page or something? Or can we just archive this page anyway? GoldRomean (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for Article Improvement
@48JCL: I took a look at the article again, as you requested. I wrote this a few days ago, but since you didn't specify where you want it, I'll put it here, if that's alright with you and the WP guidelines.

Okay, I have a few more suggestions. Apologies for my extensive use of the talk quotes template.

✅ ✅ ✅ put it in an EFN. ✅ ✅ ❌ If I delete, then the SFN tags will be deleted, breaking the page. ❌ they were not exactly the same, BUT I’ll try to make a new map. removed 1 incident of the word, however the other two are necessary. 1 for the lead being summary style, and 2 for an explanation. This is just overall, I haven’t really looked at sourcing or smaller details. Looking at the FA criteria (as I think the A-class one varies depending on the WikiProject and the overall one isn’t very specific):
 * 1) Put this in chronological order: In November 1914, the Iowans of Kossuth County voted against the creation of Larrabee County. The county was preceded by Crocker County until it was disestablished being illegal. A referendum was held in Kossuth County in order to propose the existence of Larrabee County. The proposal failed and Kossuth County remained the largest county in Iowa.
 * 1) In the “Background” section, making Iowa a state of X counties is repetitive.
 * 1) On February 22, 1913, Larrabee County was proposed by James McHose, an Iowa congressman from Boone, Iowa. Change to “the creation of Larrabee County was proposed…” or something like that?
 * 1) If Larrabee County was to be created, it would consist of the north one third of Township 97, all of Townships 98, 99 and 100 north, of ranges 27, 28, 29 and 30 west of the fifth principal meridian in the state of Iowa. Excuse my lack of related knowledge, but I’m still a little confused by this. What is township 100 north, a range, and 30 west of the fifth principal meridian in the state of Iowa?
 * 1) Lowercase Township in sentence above and change one third to “one-third”.
 * 1) Portrait of William Larrabee, who the county was to be named after. Change to “Portrait of William Larrabee, after whom the county was to be named.”
 * 1) Try to decrease the use of footnotes. For example, correct me if I’m wrong, but the first one is already used is the “References” section, so could be deleted.
 * 1) Possible replace the map of Bancroft County into one of what Larrabee would’ve been (though they’re virtually the same).
 * 1) If it’s possible to reword or write it another way, I think that mentioning the fact that “Kossuth is Iowa’s biggest county” three times is a little much.


 * 1a. The prose could be cleared up. Grammar-wise, it’s alright, though a little hard to understand/out of order at times.
 * 1b. Pretty comprehensive save some minor issues.
 * 1c. Well researched, although the sourcing could be cleared up and a few more sources could be found (like I said though, I haven’t had the time to look at that yet).
 * 1d. Yes.
 * 1e. Yes.
 * 1f. Yes, if your GA Earwig assessment was correct.
 * 2a. Yes.
 * 2b. Not much structure, but it’s a short article, so yes.
 * 2c. Haven’t check citations yet.
 * 3. Yes, but I haven’t checked for copyright yet (this should’ve been done for the GAN anyway).
 * 4. Yes.

Really, this is a pretty good article. If this passed A-class though, you would likely nominate it for FA. I’m a little worried about notability and length right now, however. There’s not that many sources discussing this right now, and if this became a FA, it would be one of, if not the shortest FAs on Wikipedia.

I suggest requesting a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy-Editors sometime after you make these edits. I might have more ideas later, depending on what the article looks like.

If I’m not wrong, for A-class, you have to nominate through a WikiProject? So either WP History or WP United States. Let me know if/when/where you nominate. Sorry for making this ridiculously long. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:A? states that a nomination can be made on the talk page. For the comments on notability, this was accepted at WP:AFC, and the sources do demonstrate notability. 48JCL TALK  23:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Issues addressed, however WP:A states that it can have minor style issues. 48JCL TALK  00:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * by the way, do you have any more feedback? 48JCL   TALK  00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's some small stuff. Very sorry but I'm a little occupied right now, I'll get back to you in a few hours/days. Sorry again. Also, are you going to leave a note on a WikiProject talk page or anything like that, because I doubt any editors are going to proceed with the A-class as this article isn't viewed very often (with all due respect). GoldRomean (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And random question: This passed DYK, right? Do you know when it's scheduled to run, because that would be really cool :D. GoldRomean (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will ping CosXZ, the GA reviewer fi they would like to review this, if you accept. 48JCL  TALK  00:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's alright. Go ahead, and good luck. I'm not sure if it will pass, but if it doesn't, remember that you still write a GA! Good luck. GoldRomean (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CosXZ, could you help check (I need one more support) to see if this meets A-class criteria? 48JCL  TALK  21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Going to make it clear that I'm just offering advice and suggestions, I've made some edits to this article so I'm not going to get involved in A-class review stuff. But good luck. GoldRomean (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)